Jeff Nelson and Gerry Lindgren, former prep record holders weigh in-MORE MILES

again, as usual, you are missing the point. He is trying to downplay the part of genetics to get us charged up about working hard and giving it our best and NOT be a quitter, (like you appear to be); hard work and average genetics can beat great genetics and a bad work ethic; we've all seen it. No doubt, genetics play a major role but shouldn't be used as an excuse for the less genetically endowed to give up and not try.

Unfortunately, you're missing the point. Being motivated to be the best runner you can be would not lead you to train like Lindgren.

By the way, would Gordon Innes be an example of the California Syndrome? Didn't he run 8:55 in the two mile, attend UCLA for a year, and then transfer to another college to run the steeplechase?

Living in the past; we have running legends, American Record holders, NCAA Champions and former World Record holders posting in this very thread telling us about the benefits of high mileage running.

What are your running credentials? Seriously, I’m curious as to what makes you an expert on this certain topic? Did you train high mileage before? What were your personal records in distance races?

Living in the Past wrote:

bow down to the runt.... wrote:

no, smart ass; you had a loser's attitude; anyone can see that in your posts and you are bitter about your career, which you thought should have been much greater.

Of course, doing the same workouts as a superstar will not have you running like a superstar; heredity plays an important role too; but you can strive to be the best you can be, through hard work whether it is a 9 minute 2 mile or a 10 minute 2 mile.

Let's see....who would I rather listen to for advice and inspiration if I were a runner; Living in the Past or Gerry Lingren?

Gerry says genetics don't matter. You aren't listening to Gerry.

Whether someone is more talented than you or not, if you're losing to them, the only way you're ever going to beat them is to work harder and smarter.

It really is that simple.

Gerry, whether he is the real Gerry Lindgren or not, gets it. Old men like "Living in the Past" do not.

Evil wrote:

Living in the past; we have running legends, American Record holders, NCAA Champions and former World Record holders posting in this very thread telling us about the benefits of high mileage running.

What are your running credentials? Seriously, I’m curious as to what makes you an expert on this certain topic? Did you train high mileage before? What were your personal records in distance races?

I don't claim to be an expert. You don't have to be an expert to know that recovery is a key part of training. At some point during the day, you're better off taking a break than continuing running. The less-talented guy who tries to compensate by always training harder than everyone else risks breaking down. He might not even run up to his potential. This is just fundamental knowledge that was popularized by Bill Bowerman and others. You don't have to be a world record holder to know that.

Someone asked whether one should listen to me or Lindgren. What he should have asked was whether one should listen to Lindgren or Bowerman? Lindgren or Lydiard? Lindgren or Daniels?

And by the way, I'm not knocking high mileage at all. High mileage is essential. But at some point, less is more. Some runners understand that. Some don't.

we are still waiting for you to tell us your prs and what age you set them?

Interesting you bring up 'breaking down'. The more mileage I ran the less I broke down. I actually got stronger and became more resilient. Recovery sped up after workouts and races too. There is this thing I learned when training called 'active recovery'. Easy miles actually helped me recover faster and I believe avoid injury.

I was more injured when running 40mpw than when I ran 115mpw.

And I'm sure runners who trained with high volume felt the same. Living in the Past; What was your maximum miles when you were (or are) training?

Step 1: Set up a debate between Gerry and the Penguin

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: PROFIT!!!

Seriously though, someone on here said that Lindgren's time for the 660yd was 2:30 as a freshman. I think it was a 2:30 880. So what's the truth?

does it really matter? A slow time is a slow time. In 9th grade it doesn't really mean much.

not hard to figure... wrote:

does it really matter?

Yes it does. There's a huge difference between a 2:30 660 and a 2:30 half mile.

An 8 year old girl can run a 2:30 660 without any training. But if you're a freshman guy and can run a 2:30 half mile off of minimal training, you would be one of the best guys on the team (as far as talent is concerned).

ok, let's assume it was an 880. 2:30 is hardly a top time anywhere as far as I know. We didn't train in 9th grade, which was jr. high in those days, yet our top guys ran between 210 and 215.

not hard to figure... wrote:

2:30 is hardly a top time anywhere as far as I know. We didn't train in 9th grade, which was jr. high in those days, yet our top guys ran between 210 and 215.

Not a top time, but pretty good for an incoming freshman who runs 0-5MPW. If he were to train fairly hard, say, 30-40MPW, he would be around 2:15 by the end of his first HS track season. Additional training and maturity should bring him to a sub 2 half mile by the end of his senior year.

It's not a world-class time or anything, but he would be one of the best 3 guys on the team, if not THE best guy on the team.

Once again, a 2:30 half mile for an untrained freshman doesn't mean he's potential Olympic material, but it's pretty good locally. I didn't join track before HS, couldn't run a sub 2:30 800 before my freshman XC season, and finished my track season with a 2:14 800. Only one freshman in my team ran faster than that, and that was in a big school with about a hundred guys (and about 70-80 girls) on the team.

Living in the Past wrote:

By the way, would Gordon Innes be an example of the California Syndrome? Didn't he run 8:55 in the two mile, attend UCLA for a year, and then transfer to another college to run the steeplechase?

Gordon ran at UCLA for several years (three?) before transferring. While at UCLA he ran in the NCAA steeple final and also in the national (USATF? AAU?) steeple final....I don't remember which, but I believe he fell in the last water jump in one and got 6th in the other. He won many points for the Bruins in track meets in all distance events at the time they had their dual meet winning streak (and when they had great meets against USC, Arizona, Tennessee, and others). He was also #1 man on UCLA's XC team, and qualified for, and ran in, the NCAA national XC meet.

I believe he transferred to Tennessee, but do not know what he ran there.

Living in the Past wrote:

Great post. Southern California was the Kenya of the 1970s for high school. Your region produced an endless parade of 9-minute two milers. It seems that back then almost half of the high school runners in the U.S. who broke nine minutes were from California.

What do you think caused the dry spell in the 80s and 90s? There were years when maybe one runner nationally would break nine minutes, and that runner was likely to be from some state other than California. So while the 20-year period following the 1970s was a dry spell for the nation, it was a severe drought for California, compared to where it had been. .

I think the answer to the "dry spell" basically was competition and confidence. We were all exposed to great running & runners through competition, on TV(sometimes 2 meets in one day with only 5 channels to choose from)and out on the roads & in the hills training. You come around a corner and there is Dave Babiracki, you ask if you can tag along he obliges, He asks you how things are going etc gives you a few pointers, tells you a few stories and you learn.

We all knew about Ryun, Lindgren, Liquori, Pre in High school and that was just 10 years before. So we didn't think of them like Gods, we wanted to better them. What they did was not unobtainable.

I remember watching Hulst on TV and switching to more speed based program to out kick him later in the year.

I remember when Beck got close to 4 as a Junior and I'm thinking "great here's ANOTHER guy I got to worry about"

and then senior year Hunt pops that 4:02 indoors, It was crazy fast for Feb. Every summer we would run the all comers meets and run quality races. You never knew who would be there, one week you run 4:15 and you win, the next week that time was maybe 10th.

I was in SoCal running at the same time as Beck, Hulst, Serna, Kimball, Hunsaker, Spilsbury, Moses, Hunt. But there were DOZENS more like myself who were taking risks to beat these guys because that is what it was going to take to be the best. We trained through early season meets, so why not later meets too? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger was the name of the game then.

I ran a 4:12, 1:54 double when i was a HS junior. I did that at UCLA all comers with a half hour rest between.

It was a piece of cake because i had cut way back on training after a knee injury took me out of City. In the City Prelim I was leading the guy who almost beat Suhr with a 1:51 at State. I could have limped the last 220 we were so far ahead and still qualified.

So what did i do senior year?

I Trained HARDER, I was doing two a day interval workouts for speed right up to and including the day before City. Of course i couldn't sustain that and my legs died the last 220 went from 1st to fourth in an instant. Even the guy who got third said "WTF" as he passed me. To me it wasn't about winning, it was to be as fast as possible.

Consequently I am one of those runners who has a few school records, alot of trophies & medals, but is largely invisible. If i ran in another State I probably would have been a 4:30 1:58 guy, maybe pop a good run at state, win a title.I'm not denigrating those guys, its just if you win every week and you never cross paths with someone you will not push yourself to the extent that we all had to just to maintain our small piece of the pie. And if you wanted a bigger slice you had to take alot of chances because the guys that owned more took alot of chances.

Hulst used to throw down 6o seconds splits to burn out the kickers sitting on his shoulder. He could do that and still break 9. How hard do you have to suffer to counter that? 100 MPW? Sorry, miles alone won't cut it.Maybe Miles in the morning and Speed in the afternoon/evening? that was my plan. Unfortunately i found the breaking point.

10x220 in 25 the night before City does not a record make:(

My whole point is that competition was so great we learned, we did stupid things, we pushed the envelope and for every guy you heard about, there were a dozen more right behind pushing him, so many guys in the wings trying to break through.

After my 1:54 in the summer i could not even beg a spot in the Sunkist meet, My school had 3 Varsity sub 2 minute half milers and 4 more in bees & Cees and they would not let us in the Sunkist 2 mile relay. too slow...

I know a guy who qualified for the State 2 mile at sub 9:10 didn't even run because the real race was going to be a half lap ahead of him.

Time Warp wrote:

Gordon ran at UCLA for several years (three?) before transferring. While at UCLA he ran in the NCAA steeple final and also in the national (USATF? AAU?) steeple final....I don't remember which, but I believe he fell in the last water jump in one and got 6th in the other.

1976

F: 3,000 meters; S/F: 12/12; D: 12 JUN

1. Randy Smith 8:26.8

2. Doug Brown 8:33.6

3. Mike Roche 8:35.2

4. Greg Meyer 8:38.8

5. Dave Reinhardt 8:45.0

6. Gordon Innes 8:48.6

One last thing i have to reply to Gerry/Jogger,

he is absolutely right in the sense of pushing yourself. When i finally did improve it was backing off the mileage BUT duplicating the race situation.

If you are going to control the way you react in the crucial point of a race when you are at the breaking point is to put your self in that painful state and learn to take control of the situation. You learn to sprint when you are gasping for breath because you realize through constant repition of this uncomfortable state, you are hyperventiating and have too much air. You regulate your breathing, boom, back in control & ready to sprint.

Its easier said than done, but the more often you get to that state, the easier it becomes. You train your body and mind to not panic under attack. For Gerry and alot of others to reach this state is Miles and i would agree for the sake of basic improvement more miles is going to translate to much better performance. To get to an elite state by volume is possible, but really not the efficient method.

Not to bash you Gerry, but it was probably the easiest way.

Go out the door, run until you drop, sleep a little,

Eat a little, repeat. Kind of like building the worlds biggest callous, not alot of thinking, just run.

However there comes a time to veer off that road and i agree with you that probably most have taken that detour too soon. I could have a long discussion with you of things that we have both seen that people on this board would call BS, but we know they are real because we have either done it, or witnessed it.

There was a guy who had the 880 record at my HS, just a few ticks from the National record. I was told he was crazy. One of the seniors had met him and trained with him,they would do half mile repeats, run 660 at race pace then hop the last 220. Mediatate between intervals, run stairs then do a backwards 220. I laughed then.

but when i got to college i understood what the guy was doing, he was ahead of his time. He was doing specific things to introduce differnt variables under race conditions/stress and then teaching his body how to cope with them. When one muscle group failed, his brain was able to not panic & turn the switch. Kind of similar to a stroke victim who retrains new pathways in the brain to perform the tasks normally conrolled by the destroyed cells.

Gerry is both right & wrong here, i know this sounds like a bunch of new age ying yang crap, and i am no "Mr. MIYAGI"

He is defintely right about not enough mileage/suffering/no limits mindset. There just more efficient means to that end.

Having lived in So Call during the onset of the "So Cal" syndrome, I can say during that period there was a belief that one could surpass the years/generations before. While few had times fast enough to match Ryun and Lindgren. People should remember there were other amazing runners in the 60s that set the standard for the 70s.

Yup, training was certainly being experimented with, increased mileage at that. It was not unusual to see amazing times (and other Track and Field marks). To denigrate 70s runners for pushing the envelope seems naive, in that HS and College runners were essentially experimenting and seeing where the boundaries were. HS guys were ... HS guys - wanting to be more and therefore doing more - pretty demonstrable correlation. Can't argue with success - that was the hue and cry.

Another thing that I remember as being an influential factor - was that runners seemed to have a network wherein they were eager to see what everyone else was doing. No internet obviously but there were several different coaching philosophies - and coaches who had exceptional reputations and exceptional results. They didn't all agree, but I know I moved around to several just to experiment. Very interesting education. It was definitely an exciting time - and no one was forcing the 100mpw thing although a lot of people HS and college were doing it - or at least approaching that. Guys would go from 9:40 two miler's to ~9:10 in a year (jr to sr) - pretty heady stuff for an aspiring High School athlete - or even a college freshman. Puts you (then) at the threshold of 'the big time".